[1] The degree of duty of care to be performed by a doctor in the course of performing medical practice and the standard for its determination

[2] Standard for determining whether a doctor is negligent in the diagnosis, and in a case where a doctor is unable to conduct a necessary inspection due to various circumstances, such as the facilities of a medical institution, whether the patient is obligated to recommend all of the other medical institutions to undergo the inspection (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that it was negligent for a patient who continuously appeals to the pain certificate to a traffic accident to a hospital, other than a superior hospital that can receive a close examination and treatment as to whether the patient was damaged or not, without conducting the minimum inspection necessary to clarify the exact cause of the symptoms

[4] The case holding that even if the intention of a patient who continuously appeals to a motor vehicle accident does not seem to have any abnormal opinion in the general X-ray test, etc., it was negligent in finding the accurate name of the patient by conducting a close inspection, such as clothes CT photographing using a steering system, and taking the appropriate treatment and early transfer to a superior hospital into account, but neglecting the correct name of the patient

[1] In performing medical acts, such as diagnosis and treatment, a doctor has the duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the duties of managing the patient’s life, body, and health, and such duty of care shall be determined based on the level of medical acts performed in the clinical medicine field, such as medical institutions, at the

[2] As the starting point of clinical medicine is to distinguish whether or not a disease has been caused by diagnosis, diagnosis, promotion, hearing, and various clinical tests, etc., and to clarify its kind, character, degree of progress, etc., and accordingly, the Medical Treatment Act is an important medical practice selected accordingly. Thus, in determining whether or not there is negligence in diagnosis, even though it is impossible to conduct a complete clinical examination in the process, the determination of whether or not there is negligence in diagnosis shall be based on the medical ethics, medical knowledge, and experience required by the doctor as a professional, within the scope of the diagnosis level practiced in the field of clinical medicine, and shall be based on the best duty of care necessary to avoid the occurrence, and shall be determined by the doctor. In addition, if the doctor is unable to conduct a necessary examination for diagnosis due to facilities of the medical institution in question, geographical factors of the medical institution in question, and other various circumstances, the patient concerned shall be obligated to recommend all of the medical institution concerned to undergo the examination, unless there are special circumstances.

[3] The case holding that it was negligent for a patient who continuously appeals to the pain certificate due to traffic accident to a hospital, other than a superior hospital that can receive a close examination and treatment as to whether the patient was damaged or not, without conducting the minimum inspection necessary to clarify the exact cause of the symptoms

[4] The case holding that even if the intention of a patient who continuously appeals to a motor vehicle accident does not seem to have any abnormal opinion in the general X-ray test, etc., it is found that there was a negligence by neglecting to identify accurate illness by conducting a close inspection, such as clothes CT photographing using a steering system, and thereby giving appropriate treatment and early transfer to a superior hospital

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da12270 decided Jul. 24, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2216), Supreme Court Decision 98Da45379, 45386 decided Mar. 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 772), Supreme Court Decision 98Da50586 decided Jan. 21, 2000 (Gong200Sang, 470), Supreme Court Decision 200Da16237 decided Apr. 26, 2002 (Gong202Sang, 1229), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da3822 decided Jan. 24, 2003 (Gong203, 705Sang, 705) and Supreme Court Decision 2008Da42849 decided Apr. 26, 2005 (Gong2094, Apr. 26, 2005)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Cho Yong-han, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Full-time et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 15, 2005

1. The Defendants shall pay 10,956,053 won to each of the Plaintiffs 17,34,079 won, Plaintiff 2, and 3 respectively, and 5% interest per annum from January 16, 2004 to September 7, 2005, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. Ten percent of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants pay to each of the Plaintiffs 1 57,214,689 won, Plaintiff 2, and 3 respectively, 37,476,459 won, and 5% per annum from January 16, 2004 to the date of this sentencing, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the arguments as a whole, and there is no counter-proof in the following facts: Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 1 through Eul evidence 19, Eul evidence 1-1 to Eul evidence 4-5, Eul evidence 1-1 to Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 1-1 to Eul evidence 10, and the purport of the whole arguments against the President of the Korean Medical Association of the Republic of Korea and the President of the Long-gu General Hospital.

A. The plaintiff 1 is the spouse of the deceased non-party (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") who died after being treated in the clinical medical clinic (title omitted), and the plaintiff 2 and 3 is the deceased's children, and the defendant 1 is the medical doctor who operates the clinical medical clinic, and the defendant 2 is the deceased's medical doctor who treats and treats the deceased, respectively.

B. At around 10:00 on January 13, 2004, the Deceased was injured by a serious shock on the part of the decedent, who was on board the upper part of the car driven by Plaintiff 1 in the vicinity of the Busan-Eup, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul-do, and caused the injury of the captain, etc. by obtaining a heavy shock on the parts of the decedent, who was on board the upper part of the car, and who was on the part of the central line tight, with the snowd.

C. On January 13, 2000, the Deceased got an emergency medical treatment at an interest center hospital near the site where the accident occurred, and around 20:00 on January 13, 2004, the Deceased was a member of the board of directors within a mountain mountain located in which he had a blood fluorite due to the terminal of the horse. At the time, at the time, the part of the Deceased was exposed to a traffic accident that led to a trace of strings by the safety bell, and the Deceased complained of a fluort, such as the upper part of the upper part of the upper part and the upper part of the upper part, and Defendant 1 returned to the Deceased as he did not discover a fluorial test, such as whether the upper part was tension and the upper part of the upper part, but did not discover a fluorial test.

D. At around 10:00 on January 14, 2004, the deceased visited her National Assembly member of the National Assembly in her face to receive blood speculation and complained of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part, and

E. Defendant 1 transferred the Deceased to (name omitted) Manova, and on January 14, 2004, Defendant 1 hospitalized the Deceased in (name omitted) Manovasium, and on January 17, 2004, Defendant 1 hospitalized the Deceased in (name omitted) Manovasium. At the time, the Deceased was fluoring and moving wheel chairs due to her uniforms, and Defendant 2 inspected the Deceased, such as X-ray test and her clothes chospathmology test, her uniforms CT photography (However, Defendant 2 did not use the CT filming system). However, Defendant 1 diagnosed the Deceased with a certificate of influoring the son’s appeal as a result of the diagnosis by Defendant 1, who was not showing any symptoms, and had the Deceased conduct a general meal without taking a fluoring measure.

F. Around 9:00 on January 15, 2004, Defendant 2 served as a nurse for a medical control of the Deceased, but the nurse was in charge of a medical control of the Deceased, but the pains of the Deceased continued. Since then, the above Defendant or nurse did not take any particular measure despite the continuous appeal by the deceased’s family members.

G. At around 9:00 on January 16, 2004, Defendant 2 confirmed that the part of the clothes of the deceased was enlarged, and solicited the deceased to have an experimental rupture inasmuch as there were opinions on the heat in the rupture of the rupture, Defendant 2, at around 10:00, recommended the deceased to use the rupture hospital to have an rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture. The deceased arrived at the Ulsan National University Hospital around 11:0 on January 16, 2004, but could not perform an operation late, and died at around 18:10 on the same day.

H. Damage to uniforms is divided into an ordinary course of business according to the advance of the occurrence. In the case of a dubed part, most of the damage caused by direct energy transmission to the patient can be seen as being caused by a traffic accident patient (a collision and drilling accident and pedestrian vehicle accident). A long-term damage caused by a sudden impairment caused by a motor vehicle collision can vary depending on the patient’s seat location and whether the safety bell is worn, and a long-term damaged part mainly causes damage (e.g., a rain), a long-term (e., a rain), e.g., a prolonged-term (e., a rain), and a strong-term (e.g., a grave, a ledger, and a luminous) connected part of the central government and a long-term (e.g., a dubing part), attached to the head, and may be accompanied by a long-term damage located in the dubing part. It is not mainly caused by a continuous damage, but is at the frequency of such damage.

I. It is desirable for passengers to conduct a close inspection (a uniform CT photographing, etc. using a dummy and steering agents) as far as there is no abnormal opinion in the physical examination, blood examination, and general X-ray examination, even if there is no abnormal opinion in the case of dummy in the case of dummying patients. In a case where passengers conflict with a vehicle coming under the dummy and continuously appeal the dummy for the dummy after undergoing a diagnosis on the dummy in the dummy part to the dummy part to the dummy part to the dummy part to the dummy part to the dummy part to the dummy part to the dummy part to the dummy part, it is desirable to take into account whether to conduct a dummy and the dummy part to the dummy part to the dummy part to the du

j. In general, an X-ray inspection is difficult to clearly verify whether a long-term damage has occurred to a long-term form in the mouth, and in the case of a long-term py, it is difficult to obtain accurate images due to the lack of ultra-wave in the case of gas in the case of a long-term ion of clothes. However, in the case of the implementation of a py CT shooting without the use of the steering system, it is widely implemented as it is possible to verify whether the long-term damage to a long-term form and the degree of the blood transfusion in the long-term ion. In the event of the implementation of the py CT without the use of the steering system, it is possible to verify the degree of damage that causes damage to the escape or long-term alteration of the appearance in the long-term form of a large quantity, but in order to more accurately understand the degree of damage, it is possible to obtain more accurate information by photographing the cT shooting and obtain more accurate information.

(k) A patient suffering from damage to clothes shall commence meals, if the patient’s condition has improved during the observation period and there is no possibility of changing or performing a surgery. In general, meals shall take precedence over drinking during the observation period from the early stage of damage. In cases where the period of planting differs and where an operation or treatment for a serious patient is required due to the patient’s condition, it may be replaced by static dystrostrophy, not by a light-gur.

(l) According to the result of the autopsy of the other parts of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, a private person of the deceased is pansive perchitis by the commander of the National Assembly, and dubitis is presumed to be caused by shock in traffic accidents, and there was a possibility of promoting the death of the deceased’s terminal flaction.

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) A physician has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the duties of managing the patient’s life, body, and health. Such duty of care is determined based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medicine field, such as a medical institution at the time of performing the medical act. In particular, diagnosis is an important medical practice in which it is determined whether a patient is suffering from disease based on the result of a satise, diagnosis, promotion, hearing, and various clinical tests, and its kind, character, nature, and degree of progress, etc. are determined accordingly. Thus, in determining whether there is negligence in the diagnosis, even though it is impossible to conduct a thorough clinical examination in the process, it shall be determined based on the medical ethics, medical knowledge and experience required by the doctor as a specialist, within the scope of diagnosis conducted in the clinical medicine field, and it shall be decided with the doctor’s duty of care to ensure that the patient in question has no other duty of care to predict and avoid the occurrence of a dangerous result, and if there is no other special reason for the relevant medical institution.

(2) Defendant 1’s negligence

According to the above facts, in a case where a passenger conflicts with a motor vehicle of the passenger who was at the front level of the safety level and revealed scambling scam on the part of the body, and continues to appeal the scambling certificate after being diagnosed by the scambling on the part of the body, and after being diagnosed by the scambling at the hospital at which the patient was placed in an emergency treatment, it can be seen that there is a doubt about the scambling and the scaming of the scambling scam within the scambling and the scambling system depending on its location. Thus, Defendant 1 took into account whether to conduct the scambling scambling and the scambling classification based on the results and continuous conditions of the scambling, without conducting the minimum inspection necessary to accurately identify the causes of the symptoms of the deceased, and only treating the deceased by conducting the scambling by using the scambom.

(3) Defendant 2’s negligence

In light of the above, Defendant 2 had conducted a close inspection, such as X-ray inspection and the cT photographing using the ray, even if the deceased did not seem to have any abnormal opinion on the part of the deceased at the time of transfer to the (title omitted), and the deceased was unable to walk properly. The deceased was diagnosed on the part of the deceased who was affected by a traffic accident, and may continuously appeal for the her uniforms, and thus, it could be seen that he was suspected that he had the deceased do so, and even if he did not seem to have any specific opinion on the part of the X-ray inspection and the her clothes cT photographing using the her uniforms, etc., the patient damaged the her clothes should have been able to have the her clothes removed during the observation period in general, and even if the patient was unable to change or perform her uniforms due to the improvement of the patient’s condition, the deceased did not appear to have been negligent in performing the close inspection without any specific opinion on the part of the deceased, even if he was found to have been negligent by the deceased’s her head of the EX.

As to this, Defendant 2 argues that it is difficult to view that he was negligent for Defendant 2, just because he did not use the steering system, because it is dangerous for the deceased, who is a chronic renal failure, to administer the steering system when the symptoms have been discovered due to a large side effect or when the first step is taken. However, in full view of the purport of the argument as to the fact-finding on the president of the Korean Medical Association in the 1980s, it is known that the side effect of the steering system has been significantly decreased since the use of the low epidemic ionic tension, and the occurrence of such side effect occurs between 10 minutes after the operation of the steering system and 10 minutes, so most cases can minimize side effects caused by the steering system in the event of the implementation of the first step proper treatment when the patient's conditions have been observed during this period, and it is difficult to recognize any other side effect due to a chronic toxicity problem that may have already been caused by the blood toxicity of the patient.

(4) Therefore, the deceased’s death constitutes a joint tort caused by concurrent acts by the Defendants’ above medical negligence. Therefore, the Defendants have the duty to compensate the deceased and the Plaintiffs for the damages incurred therefrom, and such duties of the Defendants are jointly and severally liable.

B. Limitation of liability for damages

However, in light of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the fact that the captain’s death caused a traffic accident due to the Plaintiff 1’s negligence, who is the husband of the deceased, the deceased had lived on three occasions a week on a regular basis, and that there was a possibility of promoting the death of the deceased, and that it is not easy for the deceased to detect it early in the event of long-term damage within the aftermath River, etc., the Defendants’ responsibility should be limited to the extent of 30% of the damage suffered by the deceased from the perspective of fair liability for damages.

3. Scope of damages.

With the exception of the following separate explanation, all shall be as shown in the attached Table of Calculation of Compensation for Damages (less than the cost for the convenience of calculation shall be discarded, less than the last month shall be discarded in the calculation of lost income, and the present price shall be calculated at the time of the accident of the damages caused by the said accident by deducting the intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1-1-2-2, rule of experience, purport of whole pleadings

(a) The deceased’s lost income;

(1) Personal information

Gender: Women

Date of birth: August 15, 1954

Age (at the time of an accident): 49 years of age and 5 months;

Name of rental: 30.81

(2) Place of residence and income level: The deceased was residing in an urban area as a family owner with no special occupation at the time of the accident in this case, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the deceased could have earned at least the same amount of income as the ordinary worker’s, who had been engaged in urban daily work without the accident in this case. Meanwhile, the daily wage of the ordinary worker engaged in urban daily work is KRW 52,374 per day on September 1, 2003, KRW 52,565 per day on May 1, 2004, KRW 52,585 per day on September 1, 2004 (the plaintiffs seek after May 204).

(3) Operating period and operating days: From January 16, 204 to July 15, 2014, the 22th day of each month.

(d) Cost of living: 1/3 of income;

(b) Funeral expenses.

Plaintiff 1: 3,000,000 won

C. Limitation on liability

(1) The scope of the Defendants’ liability: 30%

(2) mountain.

Loss of the deceased 7,820,620 won x 30% = 23,346,186 won

Funeral expenses = 3,000,000 + 30% = 900,000 won

(d) Condolence money;

(1) Age, family relation, property, and educational degree, circumstances of accidents, the Defendants’ liability ratio, and other various circumstances shown in the instant pleadings shall be considered.

(2) the amount of recognition

Deceased: 8,000,000 won

Plaintiff 1: 3,000,000 won

Plaintiff 2, 3: 2,000,000 each

(e) Inheritance relationship;

(1) The deceased’s inherited property: 31,346,186 won (=property damage 23,346,186 won + 8,000,000 won)

(2) Property inheritor: Plaintiff 1 (3/7 equity): 13,434,079 won

Plaintiff 2 and 3 (Each 2/7 Shares): 8,956,053 won, respectively.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay 10,956,053 won, respectively, to each Plaintiff 1 (i.e., KRW 13,434,079 in inheritance + KRW 900,00 in funeral expenses + KRW 3,000,00 in funeral expenses) to Plaintiff 2, and 3 (i.e., KRW 8,956,053 in inheritance + KRW 2,000,000 in inheritance + KRW 2,000 in inheritance + KRW 2,000 in inheritance) and for each of them, as the Plaintiffs seek from January 16, 2004, the deceased’s death date from January 16, 2004 to September 7, 2005, KRW 5 per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and from that following day to the date of full payment, damages for delay by 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. The calculation table of damages

Judges Park Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)